|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on May 12, 2020 23:35:15 GMT
How about dividing the house mr. Commissioner?
|
|
Billy King
Former Jazz and Knicks GM
Rookie
Posts: 248 
|
Post by Billy King on May 13, 2020 15:51:09 GMT
I mean it does seem like everyone else chiming in to this thread is in favour of delaying the playoffs until the NBA has their playoffs, I'm not switched off to the idea. To me it does not seem like the best option to flow straight into our playoffs though, because waiting could create a situation where 1st Seed Sacramento goes up against 8th Seed Golden State with Klay and Durant back in the roster, which is just obscenely unfair to Sacramento. Maybe the GMs who support my idea are just not replying because they don't feel they need to? Or is there a genuine consensus against it?
I guess I don't see what's "unfair" about KD coming back for his D5 team in the playoffs if he comes back for his IRL team in playoffs.
I think it'd be unfair to bring him back otherwise, but if a player comes back IRL I think you play them here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 13, 2020 16:59:20 GMT
How about dividing the house mr. Commissioner? |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on May 13, 2020 22:39:31 GMT
How about dividing the house mr. Commissioner? How about a vote? |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on May 15, 2020 3:53:16 GMT
If the salary cap really does drop to around $90 million, it could be catastrophic to like half the teams in D5. I think there's a pretty easy way to handle it though, which is to just have an amnesty clause. Everyone gets one contract they can void. There's already precedent in the NBA for this and it's really simple to do.
After that, the hard cap rules shouldn't change. There'd be no grey area or exceptions to the rules or anything. As far as I can see the only teams that would have trouble immediate escaping a $135 million hard cap with an amnesty clause are HOU and SAC. They'd have to be a little more creative. Even for them though it doesn't change their situation much since even if the cap went unchanged they'd have trouble escaping the hard cap without an amnesty clause.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom Izzo on May 15, 2020 4:43:02 GMT
I'm not really a fan of the amnesty. It's basically a free pass to get rid of bad contracts.
I don't see the problem with just keeping the same salary cap. If we want to start creating our own rules like introducing an amnesty, then why not just create our own salary cap for one season and forego all the headache?
Cap stays the same. No increase or decrease. Bam. That's it. 🤷🏻♂️
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on May 15, 2020 6:16:47 GMT
I'm not really a fan of the amnesty. It's basically a free pass to get rid of bad contracts. I don't see the problem with just keeping the same salary cap. If we want to start creating our own rules like introducing an amnesty, then why not just create our own salary cap for one season and forego all the headache? Cap stays the same. No increase or decrease. Bam. That's it. 🤷🏻♂️ It's not creating anything. The NBA has done it multiple times before, and if the cap really does drop that much, I wouldn't be surprised if they do it again. They're going to have to do something whether it's an amnesty or prorating contracts or whatever. If we decide to stop following the NBA's cap, then who's to say it will only be for one season? What if we don't like the number for the 2021-22 season because it stays low? It would work to avoid any of the potential problems, but I don't like it as much as an amnesty, just my preference. |
|
|
|
Post by Shaquille O'Neal on May 15, 2020 7:09:31 GMT
If the salary cap really does drop to around $90 million, it could be catastrophic to like half the teams in D5. I think there's a pretty easy way to handle it though, which is to just have an amnesty clause. Everyone gets one contract they can void. There's already precedent in the NBA for this and it's really simple to do. After that, the hard cap rules shouldn't change. There'd be no grey area or exceptions to the rules or anything. As far as I can see the only teams that would have trouble immediate escaping a $135 million hard cap with an amnesty clause are HOU and SAC. They'd have to be a little more creative. Even for them though it doesn't change their situation much since even if the cap went unchanged they'd have trouble escaping the hard cap without an amnesty clause. Give everyone an amnesty clause with a 3-5 year expiration date so that all of the teams will benefit not just the Over the Cap teams. |
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on May 15, 2020 12:35:43 GMT
If the salary cap really does drop to around $90 million, it could be catastrophic to like half the teams in D5. I think there's a pretty easy way to handle it though, which is to just have an amnesty clause. Everyone gets one contract they can void. There's already precedent in the NBA for this and it's really simple to do. After that, the hard cap rules shouldn't change. There'd be no grey area or exceptions to the rules or anything. As far as I can see the only teams that would have trouble immediate escaping a $135 million hard cap with an amnesty clause are HOU and SAC. They'd have to be a little more creative. Even for them though it doesn't change their situation much since even if the cap went unchanged they'd have trouble escaping the hard cap without an amnesty clause. Give everyone an amnesty clause with a 3-5 year expiration date so that all of the teams will benefit not just the Over the Cap teams. Disagree on a multi-year or floating amnesty; the instances in the NBA’s history of such a clause have been contained to the first season of a new CBA or a designated season. A floating one essentially would be a way for a GM to undo a bad FA signing in a given period of time, which I think is a bad precedent. Plus it’s not like an amnesty clause would be unfair to teams that are clear of the cap— ultimately the point of an amnesty is its availability for everyone to use. Yes, inherently teams with bad deals or over the cap will be more inclined to use it, but there are teams under the cap (Detroit, New Orleans, Indiana) with some bad deals that would be able to employ an amnesty |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on May 15, 2020 13:17:39 GMT
I'm somewhere north of 1000% against an amnesty clause, even if they were to introduce one in real life.
We have an extremely different cap situation in D5 than the real NBA, as we have something like 10 teams scheduled to be significantly below the cap this offseason. It's not like there isn't opportunity out there to trade picks/players to get below the hard cap if it is important to you. An amnesty clause would just be letting the top teams hoard talent even further as they wouldn't need to sacrifice anything to fix their poor planning. It would also be a slap in the face to anyone who has been responsible and traded picks/talent away recently in order to get out from a bad contract.
There's also clearly enough money to go around for players in free agency, albeit maybe it's not with the top teams in the league this year like it usually is. So what? Isn't the entire point of the hard cap to encourage a redistribution of wealth of sorts? It's finally about to work for the first time in the ~10 year history of this league, and you guys are immediately wanting to circumvent it. If we introduce an amnesty then we should honestly just abolish the hard cap, or maybe even the idea of salaries and salary cap altogether, because it has all been pretty much meaningless.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerry West on May 15, 2020 13:28:23 GMT
Honestly it's completely BS that there is no salary floor and people can just tank however they want as if 5 year rookie contract weren't reward enough you now also get a pandemic situation nobody would have predicted just to screw the people trying to compete even more.
A amnesty isnt a solution but rewarding people for sucking on purpose while taking away the future of most good teams isnt the solution either. Or guess what will happen? Even more tanking and more disparity in the league since apparently putting out a bad lineup for 5 years works because you can't get fired and then you are a title contender in 2 years. Look what happened to sam Hinkie, not only fired but completely banished from the NBA.
Here is the solution, introduce the a salary floor, cut out the losing picks BS that doesnt exist in the nba, specially in this circumstance, and just make teams over the luxury tax always have to take less salary in trades and only being able to sign FA's to minimums. What's the reason for them losing picks? Because we dont have owners who might be willing not to pay the luxury tax? Guess what most owners wouldn't want to see GMs celebrating losses and putting out lineups worse than some WNBA teams. It goes both ways. If you dont want to have rules that dont exist in the nba then dont celebrate the losing picks rule that also dont exist. At least be consistent.
|
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on May 15, 2020 13:55:27 GMT
Honestly it's completely BS that there is no salary floor and people can just tank however they want as if 5 year rookie contract weren't reward enough you now also get a pandemic situation nobody would have predicted just to screw the people trying to compete even more. A amnesty isnt a solution but rewarding people for sucking on purpose while taking away the future of most good teams isnt the solution either. Or guess what will happen? Even more tanking and more disparity in the league since apparently putting out a bad lineup for 5 years works because you can't get fired and then you are a title contender in 2 years. Look what happened to sam Hinkie, not only fired but completely banished from the NBA. Here is the solution, introduce the a salary floor, cut out the losing picks BS that doesnt exist in the nba, specially in this circumstance, and just make teams over the luxury tax always have to take less salary in trades and only being able to sign FA's to minimums. What's the reason for them losing picks? Because we dont have owners who might be willing not to pay the luxury tax? Guess what most owners wouldn't want to see GMs celebrating losses and putting out lineups worse than some WNBA teams. It goes both ways. If you dont want to have rules that dont exist in the nba then dont celebrate the losing picks rule that also dont exist. At least be consistent. While I appreciate the spirit of a cap floor, it’s implementation here probably wouldn’t work since the main penalty for failing to reach the floor in the NBA— equal bonus payment dispersals to rostered players that is equivalent to the difference between actual cap encumbrances and the floor— really wouldn’t matter in D5 since that’s just a “blah” penalty. Teams wouldn’t really be incentivized to reach the floor if the penalty is “your salaries are inflated that year for your current guys.” If anything, it’d lead to situations where guys rated 70 and below get huge, one year deals to reach the floor...and then become prime trade chips. I agree the picks thing is weird, but it’s really the only tangible penalty short of prohibiting player signings of any kind— including Player Option acceptance—beyond the minimum above the hard cap line. |
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on May 15, 2020 14:06:07 GMT
I'd be cool with removing the rule of losing picks for being over the hard cap. I agree with Jerry West that it is an unnecessary addition to our rulebook. |
|
|
|
Post by George Gervin on May 15, 2020 14:10:50 GMT
I'd be cool with removing the rule of losing picks for being over the hard cap. I agree with Jerry West that it is an unnecessary addition to our rulebook. Then a corresponding move should be a player can’t opt into their PO if on a team over the HC line, cause otherwise what’s the point of HC enforcement? A team could just continue to add players in the draft until they get below the line or until their TO stage is reached, then deal them for picks to start it all over again. I don’t think a player being prohibited from invoking their PO is a good idea, but it’s the only thing left with teeth then on HC enforcement if picks are retained. |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on May 15, 2020 16:29:49 GMT
I'm somewhere north of 1000% against an amnesty clause, even if they were to introduce one in real life. We have an extremely different cap situation in D5 than the real NBA, as we have something like 10 teams scheduled to be significantly below the cap this offseason. It's not like there isn't opportunity out there to trade picks/players to get below the hard cap if it is important to you. An amnesty clause would just be letting the top teams hoard talent even further as they wouldn't need to sacrifice anything to fix their poor planning. It would also be a slap in the face to anyone who has been responsible and traded picks/talent away recently in order to get out from a bad contract. There's also clearly enough money to go around for players in free agency, albeit maybe it's not with the top teams in the league this year like it usually is. So what? Isn't the entire point of the hard cap to encourage a redistribution of wealth of sorts? It's finally about to work for the first time in the ~10 year history of this league, and you guys are immediately wanting to circumvent it. If we introduce an amnesty then we should honestly just abolish the hard cap, or maybe even the idea of salaries and salary cap altogether, because it has all been pretty much meaningless. This is such a weird comment to me. It reads like nothing might be changing next year that could mess up a team's plans. Are you really trying to say that not accounting for a potential $25-30 million drop in the salary cap is poor planning? I'm all for a hard cap, I've argued for it, and for reducing it, as much as anyone in D5 despite my own personal cap situation. I'm not for sudden, drastic changes that completely disrupt the current landscape we all stand on, because, you know, planning... It's also not true that amnesty would mean hoarding talent. Take a look at my payroll and tell me how I'd get under a $135 million hard cap while keeping all of my talent? How would the Rockets do it? How would the Magic do it? How would the Kings do it? The teams facing pressure from the hard cap would still have to make some tough decisions. The amnesty is only one idea, there are a bunch of others. What would you do to try and have an unforeseen event affect everyone in D5 equally? Or would you do nothing? Just let the chips fall where they may with some teams facing huge negative consequences while other benefit a ton. |
|
Billy King
Former Jazz and Knicks GM
Rookie
Posts: 248
|
Post by Billy King on May 15, 2020 16:57:16 GMT
If the salary cap really does drop to around $90 million, it could be catastrophic to like half the teams in D5. I think there's a pretty easy way to handle it though, which is to just have an amnesty clause. Everyone gets one contract they can void. There's already precedent in the NBA for this and it's really simple to do. After that, the hard cap rules shouldn't change. There'd be no grey area or exceptions to the rules or anything. As far as I can see the only teams that would have trouble immediate escaping a $135 million hard cap with an amnesty clause are HOU and SAC. They'd have to be a little more creative. Even for them though it doesn't change their situation much since even if the cap went unchanged they'd have trouble escaping the hard cap without an amnesty clause.
If your argument is "The nba has done this before" then why not just let them decide what they do. if they lower the cap, whatever relief they give to teams, we do the same.
problem solved.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on May 15, 2020 17:06:07 GMT
If your argument is "The nba has done this before" then why not just let them decide what they do. if they lower the cap, whatever relief they give to teams, we do the same. problem solved.
I wouldn't be against that at all. |
|
Billy King
Former Jazz and Knicks GM
Rookie
Posts: 248
|
Post by Billy King on May 15, 2020 17:26:47 GMT
If your argument is "The nba has done this before" then why not just let them decide what they do. if they lower the cap, whatever relief they give to teams, we do the same. problem solved.
I wouldn't be against that at all.
in all of these salary cap / covid discussions i just don't see any benefit of divorcing ourself from what the NBA does. it just makes things artificial for no reason except to help/hurt some teams artificially. only if the nba does something super boring like just cancels the season, then we may have a discussion on doing something different.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jerry West on May 15, 2020 17:38:39 GMT
I disagree because in the NBA there is no relief for the losing draft pick rule that doesnt exist, so it might not solve that problem.
|
|
|
|
Post by Andrei Kirilenko on May 15, 2020 18:07:16 GMT
What would you do to try and have an unforeseen event affect everyone in D5 equally? Or would you do nothing? Just let the chips fall where they may with some teams facing huge negative consequences while other benefit a ton. What huge negative consequences are we talking about here? Draft Picks: I have no issue doing a 1 time exception or completely abolishing the rule about losing draft picks Keeping Players: Using my personal opinions about player options and in reviewing the salary charts, the only players who might be able to re-sign under a $155m hard cap but not under a $135m hard cap are Paul George and Kawhi Leonard. Funny enough, these two teams/players benefitted the most during the cap spike of $22m in in 2016. The D5 Bulls got the cap room to poach Kawhi Leonard in 2016, and the Hornets squeezed in Paul George in 2017 using that higher cap. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time there was zero talk of how that cap spike was unfair to the majority of the league. Now, 4 years later, we are in a situation where the Bulls and Hornets are going to have a challenge keeping those players due to the cap decreasing in a similar manner. Why did no one care when the rich were getting richer, but everyone is up in arms now that something is happening that hurts the rich? From a Players Perspective: having an amnesty clause in D5 doesn't help the players at all. As I said earlier, there's tons of teams with massive cap room, so anyone who should get paid is still going to get paid. So I guess to answer your question... yea I would probably be fine with doing nothing. As Billy said, it probably makes the most sense to wait and see what the real NBA does and then discuss replicating that here. |
|
Billy King
Former Jazz and Knicks GM
Rookie
Posts: 248
|
Post by Billy King on May 15, 2020 18:31:01 GMT
I disagree because in the NBA there is no relief for the losing draft pick rule that doesnt exist, so it might not solve that problem. in the nba you can't get 150m on your salary cap because it's real money |
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on May 15, 2020 19:03:13 GMT
What huge negative consequences are we talking about here? Draft Picks: I have no issue doing a 1 time exception or completely abolishing the rule about losing draft picks Keeping Players: Using my personal opinions about player options and in reviewing the salary charts, the only players who might be able to re-sign under a $155m hard cap but not under a $135m hard cap are Paul George and Kawhi Leonard. Funny enough, these two teams/players benefitted the most during the cap spike of $22m in in 2016. The D5 Bulls got the cap room to poach Kawhi Leonard in 2016, and the Hornets squeezed in Paul George in 2017 using that higher cap. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the time there was zero talk of how that cap spike was unfair to the majority of the league. Now, 4 years later, we are in a situation where the Bulls and Hornets are going to have a challenge keeping those players due to the cap decreasing in a similar manner. Why did no one care when the rich were getting richer, but everyone is up in arms now that something is happening that hurts the rich? From a Players Perspective: having an amnesty clause in D5 doesn't help the players at all. As I said earlier, there's tons of teams with massive cap room, so anyone who should get paid is still going to get paid. So I guess to answer your question... yea I would probably be fine with doing nothing. As Billy said, it probably makes the most sense to wait and see what the real NBA does and then discuss replicating that here. Under a $135 million hard cap, the following teams would be unable to keep their team together without going above the hard cap. This applies to either having to trade away players or being unable to re-sign players: CHA, CHI, CLE, DEN, HOU, MIL, ORL and SAC That's 7 playoff teams including 4 of the top 5 based on record right now. You might argue that would be a good thing, finally the top teams have consequences from the hard cap right? But while those teams would get hit, BOS, BKN and MEM would benefit a lot. If the whole argument is about competitiveness and parity then I think doing nothing would be much worse and would limit the number of contenders by more than trying to minimize the shock. Also I don't think a big cap decrease is directly comparable with the big increase. Everyone getting $20+ million affects teams a lot more equally than taking money away, to where certain teams would have to break up and others get to benefit by picking up the pieces. I think the league is actually pretty competitive right now. Upwards of half of all playoff teams could win the championship and I don't think we'd be that surprised. I think the slow and steady downward pressure of the hard cap is working and we should do what we can to stay on that course. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on May 15, 2020 22:19:46 GMT
Honestly it's completely BS that there is no salary floor and people can just tank however they want as if 5 year rookie contract weren't reward enough you now also get a pandemic situation nobody would have predicted just to screw the people trying to compete even more. A amnesty isnt a solution but rewarding people for sucking on purpose while taking away the future of most good teams isnt the solution either. Or guess what will happen? Even more tanking and more disparity in the league since apparently putting out a bad lineup for 5 years works because you can't get fired and then you are a title contender in 2 years. Look what happened to sam Hinkie, not only fired but completely banished from the NBA. Here is the solution, introduce the a salary floor, cut out the losing picks BS that doesnt exist in the nba, specially in this circumstance, and just make teams over the luxury tax always have to take less salary in trades and only being able to sign FA's to minimums. What's the reason for them losing picks? Because we dont have owners who might be willing not to pay the luxury tax? Guess what most owners wouldn't want to see GMs celebrating losses and putting out lineups worse than some WNBA teams. It goes both ways. If you dont want to have rules that dont exist in the nba then dont celebrate the losing picks rule that also dont exist. At least be consistent. Keep it coming Jerry. No one wants to point out that the lone GM who went D5-mode in real life was forced out by the league, themselves. Ian Noble I hope you listen to us too. |
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on May 15, 2020 22:23:43 GMT
Honestly it's completely BS that there is no salary floor and people can just tank however they want as if 5 year rookie contract weren't reward enough you now also get a pandemic situation nobody would have predicted just to screw the people trying to compete even more. A amnesty isnt a solution but rewarding people for sucking on purpose while taking away the future of most good teams isnt the solution either. Or guess what will happen? Even more tanking and more disparity in the league since apparently putting out a bad lineup for 5 years works because you can't get fired and then you are a title contender in 2 years. Look what happened to sam Hinkie, not only fired but completely banished from the NBA. Here is the solution, introduce the a salary floor, cut out the losing picks BS that doesnt exist in the nba, specially in this circumstance, and just make teams over the luxury tax always have to take less salary in trades and only being able to sign FA's to minimums. What's the reason for them losing picks? Because we dont have owners who might be willing not to pay the luxury tax? Guess what most owners wouldn't want to see GMs celebrating losses and putting out lineups worse than some WNBA teams. It goes both ways. If you dont want to have rules that dont exist in the nba then dont celebrate the losing picks rule that also dont exist. At least be consistent. While I appreciate the spirit of a cap floor, it’s implementation here probably wouldn’t work since the main penalty for failing to reach the floor in the NBA— equal bonus payment dispersals to rostered players that is equivalent to the difference between actual cap encumbrances and the floor— really wouldn’t matter in D5 since that’s just a “blah” penalty. Teams wouldn’t really be incentivized to reach the floor if the penalty is “your salaries are inflated that year for your current guys.” If anything, it’d lead to situations where guys rated 70 and below get huge, one year deals to reach the floor...and then become prime trade chips. I agree the picks thing is weird, but it’s really the only tangible penalty short of prohibiting player signings of any kind— including Player Option acceptance—beyond the minimum above the hard cap line. Unless the rule is like, no team should be having a guaranteed salary of less than 50% of the salary cap for the upcoming season. |
|
|
|
Post by Ian Noble on May 15, 2020 22:28:37 GMT
Honestly it's completely BS that there is no salary floor and people can just tank however they want as if 5 year rookie contract weren't reward enough you now also get a pandemic situation nobody would have predicted just to screw the people trying to compete even more. A amnesty isnt a solution but rewarding people for sucking on purpose while taking away the future of most good teams isnt the solution either. Or guess what will happen? Even more tanking and more disparity in the league since apparently putting out a bad lineup for 5 years works because you can't get fired and then you are a title contender in 2 years. Look what happened to sam Hinkie, not only fired but completely banished from the NBA. Here is the solution, introduce the a salary floor, cut out the losing picks BS that doesnt exist in the nba, specially in this circumstance, and just make teams over the luxury tax always have to take less salary in trades and only being able to sign FA's to minimums. What's the reason for them losing picks? Because we dont have owners who might be willing not to pay the luxury tax? Guess what most owners wouldn't want to see GMs celebrating losses and putting out lineups worse than some WNBA teams. It goes both ways. If you dont want to have rules that dont exist in the nba then dont celebrate the losing picks rule that also dont exist. At least be consistent. Keep it coming Jerry. No one wants to point out that the lone GM who went D5-mode in real life was forced out by the league, themselves. Ian Noble I hope you listen to us too. Thinking of the implications of a salary floor, it's fairly obvious tanking teams will just stock up on a few bloated contracts right? Or is the worry here that tanking teams have too much cap space for free agents? Because tankers have never succeeded in free agency. |
|
Larry Bird
 Indiana Pacers
Starter
Posts: 1,672
Mar 5, 2024 13:29:26 GMT
|
Post by Larry Bird on May 15, 2020 23:01:25 GMT
Would it not help to build more parody to implement a salary floor, use the hard cap as recommended by others and not put in the amnesty clause?
Agree with Hana, 50% of salary cap for the season.
I.e. 2019-2020 would be $54,570,000.
|
|
Larry Bird
Indiana Pacers
Starter
Posts: 1,672
Mar 5, 2024 13:29:26 GMT
|
Post by Larry Bird on May 15, 2020 23:06:00 GMT
Although, there are only 2 teams under $90,000,000.
|
|
|
|
Post by Alex English on May 16, 2020 0:27:22 GMT
Yeah I think a salary floor wouldn't work at all. Bench warmers would just get overpaid.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hanamichi Sakuragi on May 16, 2020 0:45:34 GMT
Yeah I think a salary floor wouldn't work at all. Bench warmers would just get overpaid. Not really, if the rule state that any team cannot be under a percentage of the cap from the moment we transition to a new season. And that if the team is under that floor, he will be forced to sign random players to 2-years contract just to meet that floor. |
|
Billy King
Former Jazz and Knicks GM
Rookie
Posts: 248
|
Post by Billy King on May 16, 2020 1:09:56 GMT
Yeah I think a salary floor wouldn't work at all. Bench warmers would just get overpaid. Not really, if the rule state that any team cannot be under a percentage of the cap from the moment we transition to a new season. And that if the team is under that floor, he will be forced to sign random players to 2-years contract just to meet that floor. holy shit this rule is ridiculously bad
it doesn't even accomplish what you want and makes it basically illegal to offer 1 year contracts
lmao
|
|
Cleveland Cavaliers
Boston Celtics
Denver Nuggets
Houston Rockets
Miami Heat
San Antonio Spurs
Brooklyn Nets
Portland Trailblazers
